I've been cooking in my mind for quite a long time a sequel to King's Court. A supersized sequel with new features and some enhanced dynamics.

Differences to King's Court:

-We now have 10 starting positions instead of 8.-The King it's not a neutral killer anymore. It can be hold and will yield some positive and/or negative bonus.-The Admiral was added to the Council.-The roads now take part in game dynamics and are not just for graphical purposes like in the previous version. You can now link features for additional bonuses.-All non-important hexes without roads on them will make you lose 2 armies per round due to attrition (Supply lines)-New features were added: Mines, Woods, Ports, Cathedrals and the College of Cardinals. -Cathedrals link to the College of Cardinals from where you can bombard (excommunicate) all Court members, including the King.-Noble families now have a name instead of just letters making the lay-out more attractive. They're also represented on map by their unique coat-of-arms.-The game can now be won by objectives.

Neutral troops and starting positions-starting positions will start with 2 troops when assigned to player, but with 8 neutral troops (castles) and 2 neutral troops (nobles) when not assigned-all empty hexes/territories will start with 1 neutral troop

Click image to enlarge.

Last edited by Kabanellas on Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:06 pm, edited 30 times in total.

my 1st thought was having a victory condition on this map would really suck. then i found the victory condition.

are you determined to maintain it at 6 castles or is that going to be influenced by feedback up or down?

i ask that because i don't yet know how many castles a player will start with in 1v1. imo they can't start with 5 each. 4 would probably also put them too close to the victory condition. 2 leaves a damn lot of empty territory to get through to find each other. that leaves 3 starting possies each.

greenoaks wrote:my 1st thought was having a victory condition on this map would really suck. then i found the victory condition.

are you determined to maintain it at 6 castles or is that going to be influenced by feedback up or down?

i ask that because i don't yet know how many castles a player will start with in 1v1. imo they can't start with 5 each. 4 would probably also put them too close to the victory condition. 2 leaves a damn lot of empty territory to get through to find each other. that leaves 3 starting possies each.

You also need a lot more than just 6 castles to win though.

Please don't invite me to any pickup games. I will decline the invite.

I intend to keep the starting position limited to 2, in line with what happens on KC1.

So you'd have to get the King, 4 more Castles, 4 more Nobles and 6 Knights to win.

Of course that doing it will not be easy at all. Non-attributed castles will start with 6 or 8 neutrals. Also, owning King and Castles can be quite expensive, just to get an idea, if one owns the King with 4 castles will have a negative effect of -16 troops. Hard isn't it

It's always difficult to balance Winning Conditions between impossible objectives, which are the ones you'll accomplish when you'd win the game anyway, some rounds later, and the feasible ones.

From my part, when playing KC1 I've always felt that objectives would be a very cool add on there. So I had to insert them here

one of the issues i had with the 1st map was the labelling of the terits. after many games i still find myself attacking a terit to find i attacked the one below what i wanted. i think it is because the labels in shops always refer to what is above it, not below. i don't play board games so i have no knowledge of how they are laid out.

anyhow the borders on the map you've uploaded are much more defined so for me that is a positive, even though i need to unlearn a behaviour.

Or you could do what I do with just about every map: plunge into it with reckless abandon and complete disregard for a decent strategy and just get a feel for the map, whilst enjoying yourself, despite your confused, disgruntled opponents resent for your nonsensical actions.